Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Lossy Audio Codec's Comparison [HUGE amount of pics] [iTunes UPDATE on p.7]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lossy Audio Codec's Comparison [HUGE amount of pics] [iTunes UPDATE on p.7] - Page 7

post #91 of 222
3/23/07 at 5:50pm
I did some tests with White Noise and LAME -V0, -V0 -k, -V2, -V2 -k, etc...

Will post pics in a bit.
Quote:
================================================== =====================
keep all frequencies
================================================== =====================
-k

keep all frequencies. (Disable all filters)

LAME will automatically apply various types of lowpass filters. This
is because the high frequency coefficients can take up a lot of bits
that would be better used for lower, more important frequencies.

-k will disable all lowpass filtering. Not recommended.

White Noise - Independent Channels, Intensity 20


White Noise - LAME -V0


White Noise - LAME -V0 -k
Reply
post #92 of 222
3/23/07 at 6:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshatdot View Post
I did some tests with White Noise and LAME -V0, -V0 -k, -V2, -V2 -k, etc...
Why would you test a perceptual encoder with white noise?
Reply
post #93 of 222
3/23/07 at 6:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febs View Post
Why would you test a perceptual encoder with white noise?
I guess to watch the application of heavy use of threshold in quiet and masking thresholds for data elimination in action? I can't really think of much other reason to do it; it's not a particularly useful metric.
Reply
post #94 of 222
3/23/07 at 7:54pm
Wow awesome thread Sir Nobax! Just wondering: So would WMA 10 Pro 256kbps sound about the same as lossless? I might encode all my music with that...

Can WMA 10 Pro be played on MP3 players? My Player (YP-Z5) says it can play WMA, but does that mean the latest 10 PRO? And also, where can I get the 10 Pro codec?
Reply
post #95 of 222
3/23/07 at 8:16pm
I'm interested in seeing 128 iTunes AAC CBR, which is what most people are using these days (unless the AAC you use in the first post is already the iTunes encoder).
Reply
post #96 of 222
3/23/07 at 9:25pm
actually curious what line thickness and all other deviances from the original wav mean. Do thinner lines mean less intensity for example??? What about the detail of the lines. AAC looks in the pictures like it is the most detailed without artifacts but less intense lines. hmmm If someone could explain. I'm guessing the left edges being cutoff to black is a function of the fact that when something is less intense and complex sounding, it is given less data by the encoder??? make sense or can somebody explain these pictures
Reply
post #97 of 222
3/24/07 at 6:35am
Thread Starter 
The brighter, thicker lines are have an higher amplitude then the thinner small lines. I dont see the difference in line intensity between AAC and MP3 on the first post, i recommend you so save the files on your HDD and switch between them, this will show that they arent that different.

If you mean the older (first post) compared to the newer spectogram's in later posts, that is true, i now use Adobe Audition 1.5 and CoolEdit Pro 2.1, the images they produce do look a bit different compared to the older ones (i cant remember the version of cooledit i used).
Reply
post #98 of 222
3/24/07 at 6:44am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraseyboy View Post
Wow awesome thread Sir Nobax! Just wondering: So would WMA 10 Pro 256kbps sound about the same as lossless? I might encode all my music with that...

Can WMA 10 Pro be played on MP3 players? My Player (YP-Z5) says it can play WMA, but does that mean the latest 10 PRO? And also, where can I get the 10 Pro codec?
Yes, WMA10 Pro encodings sound like a real lossless file, this is my favorite encoder for ripping CD's to my HDD. You must however re-encode them for any portable device, since none can decode WMA Pro files (AFAIK).

To encode WMA10 Pro files simply install WMP11 (on non-Windows OS' however this wont be 'simply'), this will update the old WMA9 Pro.
Reply
post #99 of 222
3/24/07 at 6:47am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenratiophi View Post
I'm interested in seeing 128 iTunes AAC CBR, which is what most people are using these days (unless the AAC you use in the first post is already the iTunes encoder).

Ill get to it when i install itunes . If they are any different from the first post ill do a big update. (since quite a lot of itunes updates came since then).
Reply
post #100 of 222
3/24/07 at 10:36am
ty febs and filburt.
Reply
post #101 of 222
3/24/07 at 12:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraseyboy View Post
Just wondering: So would WMA 10 Pro 256kbps sound about the same as lossless?
Only you can answer that question, and the only way that you can answer it is to listen to both and compare.
Reply
post #102 of 222
3/24/07 at 12:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febs View Post
And the bitrates he has listed are incorrect as well. As are the names of the presets. With LAME 3.97, the -V x settings have superseded the old "preset" settings. For example, preset fast standard is now -V 2 --vbr-new. That should yield a variable bitrate file with a target bitrate of 190kbps, not 160kbps. Preset fast extreme is now -V 0 --vbr-new, which should yield a VBR file with a target bitrate of 245kbps.
If it's a mono file, then the bitrates look adequate (half of stereo).
.
Reply
post #103 of 222
3/24/07 at 5:46pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post
If it's a mono file, then the bitrates look adequate (half of stereo).
.
... if it would be mono it stil would be the full bitrate, not the half of it.

But i've updated my post, i put the REAL bitrates and explenation there.
Reply
post #104 of 222
3/24/07 at 6:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Nobax View Post
... if it would be mono it still would be the full bitrate, not the half of it.
Not true. A wave file transformed from stereo to mono results in half the MP3 bitrate with respect to the stereo version. Try it!
.
Reply
post #105 of 222
3/24/07 at 6:40pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post
Not true. A wave file transformed from stereo to mono results in half the MP3 bitrate with respect to the stereo version. Try it!
.
If i encode a file at 128kbps it would be: stereo, 64kbps per channel, mono 128kbps per channel.
I dont know about the Presets though, so probably you are right anyway.

But the file was full stereo, and i was wrong about the 160kbps CBR and 192kbps CBR like i stated before.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Lossy Audio Codec's Comparison [HUGE amount of pics] [iTunes UPDATE on p.7]